WASHINGTON â€” House Republicans have taken another step toward repealing new Federal Communications Commission rules that prohibit phone and cable companies from interfering with Internet traffic on their broadband networks.

The House Commerce Committee voted 30-23 along party lines Tuesday to overturn the FCCâ€™s new â€œnet neutralityâ€ regulations, which aim to prevent broadband providers from becoming online gatekeepers. The rules prohibit broadband providers from favoring or discriminating against Internet content and services, including online calling and Web video services that could compete with their core phone and cable operations.

The rules are also being challenged in federal court by Verizon Communications Inc. and Metro PCS Communications Inc.

I think this issue should be solved by the market and not through legislation. I honestly feel that a ISP who openly advertises that they do not throttle torrents, netflix, youtube etc. would get more business. I'm all for net neutrality, but I don't like the idea of the FCC gaining power over the internet in order to enforce it. I would like as little regulation as possible on the net.

For corrupt greedy billionaire corporations: bad, since now they need to do their jobs.

Why would anyone want to hurt themselves and make the ISP's rip you off even more? Heck this negatively affects the Congressmen who voted for this as well, but they're old buttwipes who don't use any of "dem crazy new technolomagies"Edited by Z Overlord - 3/18/11 at 11:58am

I honestly feel that a ISP who openly advertises that they do not throttle torrents, netflix, youtube etc. would get more business.

If this was the case, then we wouldn't be having this issue.. There'd be a bountiful assortment of amazing ISP providers in my area instead of a couple giants with monopolies that are trying to butcher regulations and degrade service to improve profit.

I think this issue should be solved by the market and not through legislation. I honestly feel that a ISP who openly advertises that they do not throttle torrents, netflix, youtube etc. would get more business.

That would be true if there was no collusion, no price rigging, no exclusive territories and no other underhanded arrangments that the ISPs engage in. Since the market is not "free", it will end up needing regulation and legislation.

It's all about preventing the building of trusts and syndicates that would lever their advantaged positions to squeeze out competitors and to impose their own ideas upon the users. It is a slippery slope problem, especially when the Internet is viewed as the premier platform for freedom of speech and expression.

If ISP's dictated "content", you can say good bye to NetFlix, YouTube, etc., because they will lever their position to force people onto their Cable services, or their digital radio - while removing your right to choose. Of course, if we had a free market, then their would be ISPs that would cater to these, and pick up customers. But we simply do not have that.

Look at it this way - you have no possible chance of acquiring a true Internet connection, because by design, ISPs have been imposed as a layer in between the users and the network. Therefore, even if there were twice the number of ISPs, you still have no choice because you can't have Internet access without them. Therefore they have to be regulated and legislated, limited so they can't shove customers around because customers would have no real choices.

This would be good for people who don't need or want those specific services, I could do without Facebook, youtube, myspace, twitter, ect. BUT I WOULD EXPECT MY BILL TO BE MUCH CHEAPER. unfourtunately, ISP's would keep their prices the same, then charge more for the features that were once included. bunch of crooks.

That would be true if there was no collusion, no price rigging, no exclusive territories and no other underhanded arrangments that the ISPs engage in. Since the market is not "free", it will end up needing regulation and legislation.

It's all about preventing the building of trusts and syndicates that would lever their advantaged positions to squeeze out competitors and to impose their own ideas upon the users. It is a slippery slope problem, especially when the Internet is viewed as the premier platform for freedom of speech and expression.

If ISP's dictated "content", you can say good bye to NetFlix, YouTube, etc., because they will lever their position to force people onto their Cable services, or their digital radio - while removing your right to choose. Of course, if we had a free market, then their would be ISPs that would cater to these, and pick up customers. But we simply do not have that.

Look at it this way - you have no possible chance of acquiring a true Internet connection, because by design, ISPs have been imposed as a layer in between the users and the network. Therefore, even if there were twice the number of ISPs, you still have no choice because you can't have Internet access without them. Therefore they have to be regulated and legislated, limited so they can't shove customers around because customers would have no real choices.

This would hurt ALL forms of online business, advertisers pay good money for their ads to be on the most frequently visited websites. With ISP's controlling access to these sites, the webtraffic on these sites would drop drastically and advertisers would pull their ads and websited would shut down. Could you imagine if facebook's webtraffic dropped 50%?? Facebook's stock would drop like a rock!